Posted on 10/20/2005 7:56:54 AM PDT by John Robertson
Just step it out:
She gets on.
At the hearings, she is not all that impressive, but she is voted up.
Our side remains fractious and resentful. Even those who screamed “Wait for the hearings!” because they got tired of saying the president can nominate anyone he wants, it’s in the Constitution, are left exhausted. (And some even admit that maybe we shouldn’t have waited for the hearings.)
A critical number of us don’t vote in 2006, either out of resentment or disillusionment or disgust or all of the above.
A handful of our senators go down.
Even if the Democrats don’t have a literal majority, they have an effective majority, with Specter, Snowe, etc. The next time there’s an opening on the court, they control the process (that is, even more than they do now).
In 2007, a crucial case comes up. What it is doesn’t matter, except that it’s important to us. It comes down to Miss Swing, who falls the other way. Ms. Miers pulls an O’Connor-when-she’s-bad, in other words. There is disbelief among her supporters—how could she do this? (That she has been toasted as a “Justice with a mind of her own” by the MSM has only emboldened her to “really get involved” in “the issues that affect Americans”). The disbelief quickly turns to deep resentment. (There will, however, be a few holdouts here on FR who will insist that it’s all part of some big plan, and that we just have to trust the president and be patient, he’s playing canasta while everyone else is playing Chutes and Ladders, or something.)
Early 2008. Justice Stevens shuffles off the mortal coil. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee urge the president, because of his lack of support among even conservatives, to hold off on a nomination. The president says he will not hold off, that his team is vetting nominees, but we all know otherwise. After the Miers debacle, he just doesn’t have the stomach for it.
Mid-2008. Justice Ginsburg resigns, for health reasons. The Court now functions with seven justices. The president puts the word out that he will name a nominee after his people come up with a nominee for the Stevens vacancy, and not before. And oh, yes, there is the looming presidential election. The MSM and Dem operatives convince a critical number of lawmakers and citizens that the “prevailing sentiment” is that we should wait for the next administration to name new justices.
November, 2008. A new president is elected. The candidate wins for two reasons: A number of conservatives decide to sit it out—resentment, disillusionment, despair, teaching a lesson, etc. But many of those conservatives back a third-party candidate, who pledges to name only originalists to the Court. The three-way race (also known as the “Arkansas Scenario,” or, sometimes, “The Carville Sneak,”) gets…a Democrat into the WH, with 34.6% of the vote.
2009. Two very unapologetically liberal candidates are named for the Court, and approved.
2011. One death this year among the justices, one resignation, for health reasons. Both conservatives, as it turns out. Two more very liberal nominees are put up, and approved. ………………
Look at the bright side, we'll weed out the McPain's and RINO's early on in the primaries just on this topic alone.
Speculation, yes. Unrealistic? No way! It could happen.
I think what the conservative intellectuals (of which I am one) would like, is for Bush to withdraw the nomination, and appoint another John Roberts instead.
The problem with this is that it would be hard to find an ideal candidate, who would be a woman, a skilled constitutional lawyer, and without a record that would cause the Dems to fillibuster.
But we are disappointed because Bush didn't even bother to look.
"Of course, it’s all just speculation. We really should wait for the hearings."
Very true, plus nothing lasts "forever".
For instance, the fact that the Republicans, having the "majority" for these many years, and being unable to actually believe it and act accordingly.
But hey ... some fish, and others cut bait.
Your scenario has Stevens and Ginsberg replaced by liberals as far left as they are and two conservatives replaced by looney leftists... that's going to tilt the court with or without Miers.
Relax, the trend is your friend and the country is moving to the right.
I find you considering yourself to be an intellectual rather amusing.
2) Amid your endless chain of speculation, you left out the part where the giant asteroid slams into the Earth and ends all life. It could happen.
Yes, that's the situation now even if your "side" proceeds with the "threat" to "sit it out". So no matter who was nominated, your end result could be the same. Oh that's right, I keep hearing "the Democrats wouldn't dare" to filibuster Janice Rogers Brown. This, I don't buy. Of course they will and as usual they wouldn't be held responsible. Still, I agree it would have been a much better show than watching Miers get treated like foolish old idiot by both "sides".
Or ... Miers could be what she says she is - a strict constructionist (which Souter never claimed to be) ... continued success in Iraq and dropping oil/gas prices .... a Saddam trial detailing the crimes of that maniac ... an Al Qaeda HVT has a date with a Predator drone .... GOP retains Congress ... Hillary v. Kerry v. Gore v. Biden v. Lieberman bloodbath with Dean, Streisand, Clooney and Ma Sheehan providing the usual comic relief ... George Allen and/or Condi and/or McCain (disclaimer: not my guy) carry the red states ... life is good!
The moment the hearings start it's a done deal, no republican would dare vote against her as doing so would embolden the rats from saying "sure I voted against so and so because they weren't (fill in the blank), heck, even his own party members voted against Miers" and voting against any nominee en masse.
Not that they might not anyway but without the cover of republicans voting against Miers I think they would lose the war.
Of course, it's all just speculation. But obviously it isn't that difficult to come up with a worthless doom and gloom vanity without expending much thought.
"She gets on.
At the hearings, she is not all that impressive, but she is voted up.
Our side remains fractious and resentful.
Then she gets her first couple chances to vote. She votes similar to Thomas, Scalia and Roberts. We all forget why so many were upset.
Meanwhile, (as I predicted, on the record, a month ago) the GOP gains a seat or two in the off-term elections, and holds the House.
Immigration increasingly becomes the #1 problem, and it becomes tied to judicial activism, esp. in AZ and CA, where judges overrule the will of the people. These judges are slapped down by the newly constructed USSC, but the outrage leads to a strong "secure borders" candidate in 2008. Hillary is crushed.
Look at the brightside... civil war.
That also accurately describes the MSM reports on a number of topics.
Will the war be televised?
I want some of what you're smokin'! ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.